In an opinion piece from the Los Angeles Times, it raises the question of “Does the Constitution have anything to say about the relationship between federal tax law and political speech by clergy?” This is answered by opposing sides, Erik Stanley head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance defense who argues that the first amendment allowing free speech is more important than any tax law, and Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State who believes that pastors should not endorse candidates from the pulpit. The main issue being addressed is, does the Johnson Amendment violate the first Amendment? The Johnson Amendment prohibits tax-exempt churches, and other tax- exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing a candidate.
Erik Stanley takes the position that the under the first amendment the Johnson amendment is in violation of the free exercise clause. Stanley says that “conditioning a church’s tax exemption on what a pastor says violates the first amendment.” He feels that the Johnson Amendment left out the constitutional rights of pastors, and that this regulation is “an excessive and unreasonable government entanglement with religion.” He also argues that the Johnson Amendment is in violation of the free-exercise clause of the first amendment, and he finds it untenable that pastors can apply scripture to every aspect of life except candidates and elections.
Barry Lynn takes the stance that when it comes to partisan politicking the government has a need to prohibit such practices by tax-exempt religious groups. Lynn counters and states that “that concerns over ministers’ constitutional rights being violated by tax laws are overblown.” He reminds us that just because there is this prohibition it does not always silence ministers and also that even secular nonprofits must follow the same rules. He feels that “the Johnson Amendment doesn’t bar political statements; it prohibits declarations in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office.”
While I can see Stanley’s point about pastor being able to apply Scripture to every aspect of life, couldn’t this be done without endorsing or opposing a candidate? So I think I am going to have to side with Lynn. A minister can still talk about politics in an indirect way and get their point across, without turning their sermon into a campaign commercial for candidates. Since ministers are influential, if they could endorse a particular candidate this might give an unfair advantage to that candidate’s campaign and would effect how campaigns are financed. While ministers might be tempted to do so, for they may have opinions on how each candidate may affect the lives of the people in their congregations, and perhaps on the morality in God’s eyes of such things as abortion, it is not their job to out and out endorse a given candidate. If they really wanted to do so, I suppose they could, if their church gave up their tax exempt status, not that they are likely to do so. But why should tax payers support such activity, even indirectly?
Link for article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-lynn-stanley25-2008sep25,0,2620493.story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree that it is not the job of the ministers to delve into politics. I find it irresponsible and off message. Not to go into theology, but the point of church is to learn of God and personally action in a manner that is in accordance with God, not another person. I would have to research the issue a little more, but in terms of tax-exempt churches endorsing candidates and thereby forfeiting their status, at this point I would continue to support that position. We are to keep religion and politics separate—both for the states sake as well as the churches. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: political positions can be influenced by one’s religion, but one’s religion cannot be a sole reason for one’s political positions. Simple as that, these ministers should stay out of politics, teach their doctrine and leave the public sector alone.
As Jefferson wrote, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."
It seems that, on every controversial issue, somebody will pull out the First Amendment argument. In this case, it's certainly a restriction on "free speech" which makes it slightly less free, but the restriction is voluntary. The church can still choose to pay taxes like everybody else and then talk about whatever it wants to talk about.
It just doesn't make sense for a church (or any secular nonprofit, for that matter) to advocate a particular candidate on the government's dime.
This is an interesting topic because it forces you to look at the flipside of the separation of church and state. We are not discussing whether or not or how the government should stay out of religion, but whether or not or how religion should stay out of government. I think we all understand that government should stay out of religion and that we are protected from this under the First Amendment, however, the vise versa of that, the idea that religion should stay out of government, is muddy water to most. It is for me anyway. I’m not sure what exactly it means to keep religion out of government or to what extent we can do this? You can’t keep a person of faith out of running for office, you can’t keep them from using phrases such as “God bless you” in the pubic forum, you can’t keep them from using religious convictions in justification for taking a particular political stance, etc.. I know that we can’t give any sort of litmus test, but we can’t keep people from voting based on the religious values of a certain candidate. We cannot keep religious leaders from preaching for a particular candidate from their pulpit, so why should it be any different in the public realm? How is it constitutional to legally restrain the speech of a religious leader by regulating what they can and cannot say in public? I am not convinced that the government has the authority to legally prohibit religious leaders from publicly endorsing a political candidate. These leaders are U.S. citizens who vote just like the rest of us.
I also think that the “but they don’t have to pay taxes” justification for this law is suggesting that the tax-exemption is some sort of unnecessary special treatment for religious sects and if that’s the case, shouldn’t the argument be to get rid of that law, not use it as an ultimatum. Aren’t we saying that you can be tax-exempt, just like all other non-profit organizations are legally told they can be, or you can enjoy your freedom of speech in it’s entirety like you and every other citizen in the United States are guaranteed. That’s ridiculous.
I appreciate the topic choice, and with much consideration of the issue, I've decided to take what will likely be an unpopular stance.
The church leaders should be allowed to say whatever they want. Regardless of tax exemption status.
This is a free speech issue to me, rather than a religion/politics one. We should never force someone to say something nor should someone be forced to forgo saying what they believe. It's the true framework for our Constitution and (in a separate argument for another time) will argue it is the reason why America fought so hard for its independence.
That said. While I firmly believe any pastor should be able to say anything, the followers should be able to choose how much, if anything, goes into the collection plate, and the state should respect its tax exempt status like other non-profits - here is where the catch lies. The church should only be able to verbally endorse candidates. Money or any kind of financial support from the church should be prohibited from reaching the candidate. Candidate donation pamphlets and financial solicitation should be kept off church grounds. This way, tax-free money isn't finding its way into politicians pockets, but at the same time, freedom of speech isn't squashed.
In all reality. If a pastor endorses a candidate, it is likely that someone in the community is already soliciting the neighborhood for donations. It's not as if the pastor is truly the sole reason an individual would seek out a particular candidate.
Post a Comment